tv [untitled] July 16, 2011 8:00am-8:30am PDT
there are a couple of things i should ever lifted earlier. i apologize for that. in terms of some of the questions the or asked to dpw, it -- that were asked to dpw, can you talk about the site visit and when it would be appropriate for planning to go out and evaluate the esthetics, and also public process, including the public in some of these decisions. >> i think you need coordination, the site visit, and early coordination amongst the agencies. i had a couple of thoughts that came out of the testimony. i thought it was really useful and appreciate it. i think we all learned a lot from it. i wanted to make clear that when i was talking about the convergence of the general plan and the better streets plan to the directors working order, i was really looking at the adequacy of the guidelines.
that was my point. i do think there is a robust set of guidelines in place through the directors working order, the better streets plan, and the general plan. they can always be strengthened, however, i believe. the other point i may not have made clear, but at least in terms of the general plan -- there is not an assumption you have to place facilities, and therefore here is the trade document. it is really a set of guidelines for saying how would you accomplish -- what kinds of good things would you haveand so, i e point and provides us with tools but it certainly tells us how to place them, but i think you still about the wet weather that plays and ultimately is a good thing for the street itself. i was also chuckling when dan weaver was here because the
streetlight master plan, we were talking about that in 1997, but i will say, over the years, and i think primarily because of the result of the better streets plan, agencies really are talking to one another much more robustly than they used to, and i think that is only a good thing, and i think it is getting stronger, and i am up here speaking for the better streets plan, but i will say the better streets plan was developed by all the agencies to gather, and they are taking this back to their agencies and working with the agencies to do that. that said, i think to your earlier point, a supervisor, we can always strength and coordination, and it can only be good for the quality that we get, it i think your point, it has to come as early in the process as we can possibly make it, but i think there should be some event in of just what is
being proposed. i observed a couple of things or heard a couple of points that i thought were very interesting, too, if i might. the first, there was the point about adding sidewalk widening into the tool kit that we might use if we are looking at the sighting of facilities. i think the idea as well, if we are putting a facilities in the street, to use them, to make better streets with the better streets plan, and as was said earlier, we may want to think about looking at, and one thing i did not do when i looked at the analysis of these documents, about looking at some of the minimum sidewalk standards and see if that might be reflected in future discussions we have,
and i think in response to my point, i answered them. >> just one quick question. there was the issue of when you widen the sidewalk. i am sure i in the number of our colleagues would like to do that in various areas of the district, and there are these unbelievably expensive to fire hydrants, so you end up leaving it, but there are other things, for example, the clear channel muni shelters or various utility boxes or where the clear channel news racks are. when we do widens sidewalks, and those types of things need to be moved, does the city pay for that, or does the person responsible pay for it? >> i do not know the answer to that question. i would assume that it would be a public project, and the public would pay for it.
the public would pay for the public facilities. i'm going to guess that utilities would be made to move, but i think john could answer that. >> supervisors, john, the city department. the city to provide a notice of intent for the companies to identify any potential conflicts for a city project. in some cases, it might be sidewalk widening. the utilities would be identified, and they would be relocated if necessary to service the facilities, and that would be at the utility company cost. supervisor wiener: what if the city wants to move it? it is not in the middle of the sidewalk, to pay for the relocation? >> these facilities, utility
companies are normally controlled by the franchise agreement or their agreement with the city and pays for that, and those are always case specific as it relates to the utility company itself, so i really can only give you a broader answer that typically it would be under the utilities cost. supervisor wiener: thank you. is there anything else you wanted to add? >> no, sir. supervisor wiener: thank you. colleagues? i want to thank everyone for coming out. making these decisions about our public rights of way, we are perhaps urged since we're taking a look at the surface mounted facilities or to see if there is any way to improve the coordination, to make it more consistent, and to make the perspective broader, so with that, i guess a motion to file.
supervisor mar: ok, without objection. ms. somera, please call item no. 5. clerk somera: biden mi5, the general plan amendment. supervisor mar: and i believe we have someone. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is part of the general plan covering hazards and disasters, prevention, mitigation recovery, primarily earthquakes, which is our biggest disaster. the proposed amendment would add language to reference the most recent hazard mitigation plan, and the reason we are doing that is that in 2007, there was a california assembly bill that allowed agencies to receive additional funding above what they were able to receive before if they mark clear the reference
the recent hazard mitigation plan. emergency management, which manages this plan, we realized that we just needed some language updated to make sure we did not miss out on any future funding, so a very simple update to make sure we are in line with for any potential should something happen in the disaster scenario. thanks. supervisor mar: thank you. so, colleagues? but open this up to public comment for anyone in the public wants to speak. public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward without objection? thank you. ms. somera, could you please read the last item? clerk somera: item number six, the planning code about signs. supervisor mar: we have already
heard on this. colleagues, if there is nothing, it can we hear from the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward? thank you. ms. somera, is there any other further business before us? clerk somera: no, there is no other business. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone. meeting adjourned. >> san francisco is home to a renowned civic art collection that includes a comic works -- iconic works by local and national artists integrated into
our public buildings and six basis. the arts commission has struggled to take care of the priceless collection because of limited resources. in an effort to gather more funding for the maintenance of the collection, the art commission has joined forces with the san francisco art dealers association to establish art care, a new initiative that provides a way for the public to get involved. the director of public affairs recently met with the founder and liquor -- local gallery owner to check out the first art care project. ♪ >> many san franciscans are not aware that there is a civic art collection of numbers almost 4000 works of art.
preserving the collection and maintaining it is something being addressed by a new program called art care. it is a way for citizens to participate in the preservation of the civic art collection. with me is the creator of the art care program. welcome. the reason we wanted to interview you is that the artist in question is peter volkas. why is he so important to the history of san francisco art? >> he is a very famous ceramic ist. knowing the limitations of clay, he got involved in bronze in around 1962. he was teaching at the university of california, berkeley.
>> your gallery celebrated the 50th anniversary of continuous operation. you are a pioneer in introducing the work and representing him. >> i have represented him since 1966. i was not in business until 1961. he made a big deal out of working in clay. the things he was doing was something never seen before. >> it is a large scale bronze. it has been sitting here of the hall of justice since 1971. talk about what happens to the work of art out of the elements. >> the arts commission commissioned the piece. they did not set aside money for repair. it has slowly changed color. it was black.
it has been restored. >> it has been restored to the original patina. >> there was no damage done to its. i do not think there were any holes made in it. they have been working on it for six or eight weeks. it is practically ready to go. i am very excited to see it done. >> over the course of the arts in richmond program, we have added almost 800 works of art into the public space. maintaining that is not something that the bond funds allow us to do. this is why you came up with the idea of art care. >> i hope we get the community going and get people who really
like to be involved. we will give them a chance to be involved. if you are interested in art, this is a marvelous way to get involved. there is work all over the city where every year ago. -- there is artwork all over the city wherever you go. my idea was to get people in the neighborhood to take care of the pieces and let the art commission have the money for the bigger pieces. >> i was talking to the former president of the arts commission yesterday. the 2% ordnance is something he helped to champion. >> it is all over california and other states now. we really were the forerunners. it is a wonderful thing to bring the community into this now. people have seen art being put into the community.
this has not been touched by any graffiti. it just faded over time. it is so open here. there is nobody watching this. i think that is a plus to the community. i hope the graffiti people do not go out there now that i am opening of my mouth. >> i want to thank you for the 50 years you have already given to the city as an arts leader. >> i started in to briberon, i's only been 45. >> you have championed his work over these years. >> it has been exciting working with him. it is one of the highlights of my life. >> thank you for being part of "culture wire" today.
>> to learn more about the program and the list of public arts in need of maintenance, visit the website. thank you for commissioner campos: we are joined by members, commissioner scott wiener, john avalos. the vice chair of the committee, carmen chu. committee member david chiu is en route. we want to thank the following staff members of the sfgtv for covering this staff meetinmeeti.
please call item two. >>item 2. approve the minutes of the june 21, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. commissioner campos: seeing none, public comment is closed. -- is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, you have the minutes of the june 21 meeting before you. motion by commissioner avalos. without objection. please call item three. >>item 3. citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item. commissioner campos: is there anyone here from the citizens advisory committee? why don't we come back to item three. why don't we stick to item four. >> -- skip to item fo4.
>> good morning, committee members. the start of its 17 of the package. the item is to recommend appointment of one member to the citizen advisory committee by way of backgroun. each member of the cac serbs two years. the cac committee and the far east that could not make recommendations as to the appointment of the cac. that appointment is made by this committee. the requirement for being a cac member, a stanford to its president, and that you speak before this committee to voice her interest of serving. we maintain a database of all applications, which is on page 20 of your package. page 19 shows the existing information about existing members.
the vacancy before you today is from the term expiration of rosie west, who is here to speak to her interested reappointment. commissioner campos: why don't we give this west or any other applicant an opportunity to address the committee. if you could please come forward, thank you for being here. thank you for your service to the san francisco county transportation authority and for your interest in continuing to serve. i do not know if you want make any statements to the committee. >> my term has expired and i want to recommit to the cac. i am interested in the k and m lines. commissioner campos: commissioner abel of spirited commissioner avalos: i am -- commissioner avalos.
commissioner avalos: i want to support the appointment of this west. -- ms. west. she has been an active member and all sorts of issues, including public transit, including the use of our parks and facilities. i would want to bring her back onto the citizens advisory committee. i know in the last year she has undergone some help issues that prevented her from attending, but those same to have cleared up, and i want to allow her to continue on the cac. commissioner campos: thank you. i do not think we have any other questions from the committee. thank you for being here and for your interest in continuing to serve. is there any other applicant who is here who would like to address the committee? i do not see any others.
why don't we open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an action item. if we could get a motion -- motion by commissioner avalos 2 reappointee rosie west to the citizens advisory committee. seconded by david chiu. can we take that without objection? without objection. congratulations and thank you for your service. please call item five. >> item 5. recommend allocation of $270,819 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for one project and $1,275,900 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the department of public works for two projects, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization program. this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. deputy for policy and
programming today at the authority. this item begins on page 21 of your packet, a request for one project wanted by the middle tradition agency and two projects sponsored by the department of public works. i would quickly go over the projects. the first project is the balboa park station east side connection project, a request for approximately $270,000 in prop k funds to leverage a $1.1 million lifeline transportation program grant, which was also programmed by the authority in july 2010. this is a joint effort between bart and mta for station accessibility improvements. this would fund the mta's version of the project. the scope of work includes a new boarding area, accessible key stop on san jose between geneva and ocean.
it is the circle on the far right. it also has associated 8 curb ramps with that element of work. there is also utility pole relocation and demolishing of an existing key stop, which is the center most circle. that work will be done once bart has completed its portion of work and constructed a new platform. the larger east side connection project is a joint effort, as i said. bart's improvements include its ability to the west side station will quite entrance project. this is recently completed scope of work. this will also include a new canopy over the bridge walkway, as well as a new bridge path to a new station access entrance,
as well as other excess of the improvements. the scope of work for the key stop on san jose will be constructed as part of the green track replacement project. we anticipate a were to be completed by mid-2012. work will put it this fall with construction to be completed by mid-2012 -- 2014. the next project is the union square right of way accessibility improvement project. dpw has requested $515,000 in prop k funds for the construction of accessibility improvements around union square [no audio] this fall.
construction and the remainder of the work will be completed by mid 20 -- 14. the next project is the union square right away accessibility improvements project. these improvements stem from a lawsuit against the lawsuit against the say that we must provide accessible sidewalks surrounding the park and also access to transit stops. the scope of work for the first phase of the project the size and phase of work which the baby needs to receive funding for.
the intersection of stockton and gary will be completed in the future as part of the central support project. all of the improvement the to be completed by june 2012 with the exception of the stockton and every street intersection. the general fund for the mayor's office prop k funds for the construction of phase one. there is an associated 5ypp amendment to the curb ramp allocation for the allocation of 2008 to make money available to this project. the third project is for street cleaning and equipment to replace assets that have reached the end of their useful life. i am here to answer any questions. commissioner campos: colleagues, any questions for staff? just a question on the improvements you are making. are you doing exactly what is required in a lawsuit?
beyond that? what is the scope of how far? >> all of the improvements, with exception of the pedestrian scramble, are in the settlement. an outline of the scope is included in page 27 of your package. it includes reducing the cross slope of the sidewalks and also making them larger for accessibility, and getting rid of the pedestrian islands, making bulbout sna dcurb ramps. commissioner campos: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have item 5, which is an action item. motion by carmen chu. second by david chiu. can we take that without objection? please call item six. >> item 6. recommend allocation of up to
$57,213,174 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for the central subway tunnel boring machines and tunnel boring launch box, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule and amendment of the 2009 prop k strategic plan. this is an action item. >> good morning, chairman campos. bmo consultant to the authority. this item begins on page 73 of your packet. the central subway has now reached a very important and critical phase. we have started with construction and the item in front of you today is to for the construction efforts of the project. in front of you you have some of the milestones of the project. we submitted a new set metal in
2010. public agency labor support, the total budget for this phase is 100 -- the early construction phase has a few components. but not all of them are relate to this allocation request. the first one is utilities relocation contract 1, utilities relocation contract 2, and then the two that are subject to this request. with publicly agency labor